Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy? - Page 28 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #811 of 3048 Old 10-16-2012, 11:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

The most important factor in digital room correction is that the optimization strategy has to be based on psychoacoustic findings not on what is technically feasible.
I assume it would have to be technically feasible either way smile.gif.
Quote:
Audyssey MultEQ XT32 obviously takes psychoacoustic considerations into account.
Obviously. Question is, why have not released any listening tests that shows their system to work well? In light of Harman testing showing it to underperform no EQ, you would think they would have been in a hurry to show results otherwise. But they have not. I know there are a lot of happy users out there but we need more than anecdotal data like that.
Quote:
By the way, the standalone Audyssey box isn't sold anymore.
Oh, the one we used still is. It is a licensed (OEM) version of their stand-alone box that is embedded in processor by that company for their specialized line of speakers.
Quote:
If you need to have full control over filter generation then this might interest you more:
http://www.audiovero.de/en/
Me? I don't need it as I have something far better, the JBL SDEC-4500:

Sdec4500.gif

That is both powering our reference theater and my own now in construction. The auto calibration system is a delight to use since it is fully transparent as to what it does. Here is a sample from our system:

i-zRWbkWV-XL.png

The line at the bottom shows all the filters that the system has auto-programmed. Not only do you see what is boosted and what is taken down, you can instantly enable/disable a filter and here whether it has done any good or not. Blind testing is a breeze. Moreover, you can grab and move any of the filters and hear their effect as the system is playing. It is not a batch process that takes tens of seconds or minutes to make a change.

Assuming one usse Harman speakers (JBL, Revel, Infinity, etc), it uses their anechoic measurements and predicted in-room performance that it then compares with the real room measurements. The "house curve" that it uses to conform them to is what the designer intended for the speaker and not an artificial one.

Other cool features are SFM which uses independent EQ, delay and amplitude for each sub to achieve better response in one and multiple seats.

Measurement system has 8 microphones (calibrated to the über expensive B&K mic) that allows it to measure all the seats simultaneously. This means you can try different strategies and remeasure with the mics in the identical position in each run. Try doing that with manual placement of mics for each run as other systems do.

Combine all of this with controlled and published testing and you have the makings of a system that has a ton of science and objective proof that it does what it is says it will do.

It is not cheap however. OP was wrong on this front. Sometimes you do get more when you pay more smile.gif. This is one example. If you need a 20 channel system (so you can bi-amp and have four subs still) with the above features plus some, it will cost money. Even at my discounted cost, it was still pricey. But it was my first purchase for my new theater.

So no, I don't need one smile.gif. But if you meant the generic "me," then sure. There are other options that give you better insight than one button consumer auto EQ system.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #812 of 3048 Old 10-17-2012, 01:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,491
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 933 Post(s)
Liked: 366
Amir you seem to be very, very biased. This will result in a type of discussion that I'm not interested in.

Just two remarks:
You have to switch Dynamic EQ to on for Audyssey to give a perceptually "flat" curve. To my knowledge Harman didn't do that in their tests.
Acourate goes far beyond what Arcos does (minus SFM). The SDEC-4500 is basically just a crossover with a number of parametric EQs in a box.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is online now  
post #813 of 3048 Old 10-17-2012, 09:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rnrgagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Obviously. Question is, why have not released any listening tests that shows their system to work well? In light of Harman testing showing it to underperform no EQ, you would think they would have been in a hurry to show results otherwise. But they have not. I know there are a lot of happy users out there but we need more than anecdotal data like that.

Why?

Since its' correction methods are based on their own psychoacoustic interpretations, what's it going to prove? That it's their own psychoacoustic interpretations ???? rolleyes.gif

It doesn't change the fact fact that it does something, and whether one prefers it or not is in the ear of the beholder.

The fact that there are a lot of happy users out there proves they've done something right... nes pas?
rnrgagne is offline  
post #814 of 3048 Old 10-17-2012, 10:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JorgeLopez11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: MEXICO CITY
Posts: 1,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 18

I've read the last five pages and I still can not see the logic behind this debate.

 

Every room needs room treatment (to some extent at least). Acoustical problems should be solved acoustically, and you may spend a fair amount of money on diverse products.

 

If apart from that you must spend some big money in room eq... Well, it is just stupid... rolleyes.gif

 

More subwoofers, more speakers, more eq processors... C''mon guys! This hobby is completely rotten!  frown.gif

JorgeLopez11 is offline  
post #815 of 3048 Old 10-17-2012, 11:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,190
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 327
Quote:
Why?

Since its' correction methods are based on their own psychoacoustic interpretations, what's it going to prove? That it's their own psychoacoustic interpretations ????

It doesn't change the fact fact that it does something, and whether one prefers it or not is in the ear of the beholder.

The fact that there are a lot of happy users out there proves they've done something right... nes pas?
This brings up an important point. There is a huge difference between doing DBTs of speakers and doing DBTs of room treatments.

Speakers are a product produced in the thousands. Obviously, if you're a speaker manufacturer and you want to maximize sales, you want to know what kind of speakers most people prefer, so you can produce that kind of speaker. DBTs of speaker preferences helps you determine that.

But room treatment is both room-specific and listener-specific. Even if there are guidelines to follow, and even if these guidelines are based on listening tests (and I'm somewhat skeptical of the ability to even do meaningful listening tests of room treatments), you still have to employ trial and error in your room with your ears (plus whatever measurements you can manage). At that point, it doesn't much matter what other people, or even most people, think about absorption at inflection points or whatever; it only matters what you think, in your situation.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #816 of 3048 Old 10-17-2012, 12:53 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post


Question is, why have not released any listening tests that shows their system to work well?

Obvious answer - no perceived need to do so.

Quote:
In light of Harman testing showing it to underperforms no EQ,

Based on how many documented tests, done in how many rooms, by how many neutral authorities? I believe the numbers are 1, 1 and zero.
arnyk is offline  
post #817 of 3048 Old 10-17-2012, 12:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rnrgagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

But room treatment is both room-specific and listener-specific.

Yeah exactly, subjective and dynamic.

Audyssey was very public about how they arrived at their process, and that they used real world example rooms and people in conjunction with acoustic sciences in order to extrapolate preference...


.
rnrgagne is offline  
post #818 of 3048 Old 10-17-2012, 01:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rnrgagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by JorgeLopez11 View Post

More subwoofers, more speakers, more eq processors... C''mon guys! This hobby is completely rotten!  frown.gif

The persuit of audio nirvana is what this hobby is about isn't it?

Otherwise it's just about enjoying the media.... hmmmm... wink.gif

Actually the last five pages have been more of a rebuttal to an attempted obfuscation of the real topic of this thread than the actual topic.
rnrgagne is offline  
post #819 of 3048 Old 10-17-2012, 01:22 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,896
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1436 Post(s)
Liked: 1029
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

Audyssey was very public about how they arrived at their process, and that they used real world example rooms and people in conjunction with acoustic sciences in order to extrapolate preference...
Other way 'round: Audyssey has kept their secret sauce so close to the vest that it has taken lots and lots of proding (see some of the exchanges between Chris K and Markus M) in the Audyssey thread to get them to say anything about their "process". More has been learned by users posting their own measurements than by anything divulged by Audyssey.

As for preference, Audyssey hasn't displayed any concern for extrapolating (let alone testing) for what people prefer. Instead, they originally concentrated on claims of "accuracy", whatever that means to them. Had they been interested in preference, then they wouldn't have used a measured flat target curve, instead using a perceptually flat curve like Lyngdorf does.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #820 of 3048 Old 10-17-2012, 02:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rnrgagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Other way 'round: Audyssey has kept their secret sauce so close to the vest that it has taken lots and lots of proding (see some of the exchanges between Chris K and Markus M) in the Audyssey thread to get them to say anything about their "process". More has been learned by users posting their own measurements than by anything divulged by Audyssey.

It's proprietary software desinged for consumer sales, why on earth should they divulge their "secret sauce"?

I don't recall the exact source of my information, but I'm very certain the design parameters were sourced using wide variety of inputs including subjective analysis of real rooms. From what I recall it was a five or six year process, and that's what they were public about, not the actual data.
Perhaps I got researching for "preference" wrong, but certainly researching for their preferred traget curve isn't a stretch, although I don't think they're mutually exclusive.
rnrgagne is offline  
post #821 of 3048 Old 10-17-2012, 02:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rnrgagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

As for preference, Audyssey hasn't displayed any concern for extrapolating (let alone testing) for what people prefer. Instead, they originally concentrated on claims of "accuracy", whatever that means to them. Had they been interested in preference, then they wouldn't have used a measured flat target curve, instead using a perceptually flat curve like Lyngdorf does.

Their target curve isn't completely flat, it has midrange compensation and a roll off in the upper end. Isn't their Dynamic EQ a perceptually flat curve generator based on real in-room SPL?

If they didn't care about preference why did they implement customizable target curves in their lastest "Pro" version?
rnrgagne is offline  
post #822 of 3048 Old 10-17-2012, 03:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,896
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1436 Post(s)
Liked: 1029
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

It's proprietary software desinged for consumer sales, why on earth should they divulge their "secret sauce"?
No one said they should. I was simply pointing out that they weren't "very public" about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

Their target curve isn't completely flat, it has midrange compensation and a roll off in the upper end.
Looks flat:

multeq-tour-05.gif

Says flat:

multeq-tour-10.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

Isn't their Dynamic EQ a perceptually flat curve generator based on real in-room SPL?
Dynamic EQ is loudness compensation, not room correction. It operates based on deviation from reference level. Problem is, if you pick a random CD off your shelf, you don't know what level it was mixed at (its reference level), rendering Dynamic EQ ineffective at what it was intended to do.

And, since Dynamic EQ is optional, some users might not turn it on. In which case preference testing would reveal that you need a downward tilted curve, like Lyngdorf and Harman ended up with. Audyssey has never cited preference as the basis of the target curve, just "accuracy".
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

If they didn't care about preference why did they implement customizable target curves in their lastest "Pro" version?
Customer feedback and complaints ("what happened to the bass"). It's the same reason they introduced Dynamic EQ a full 4 years after their room correction was released. Until then, they were telling users that what they were hearing was "correct", with no mention of it being correct only at a particular playback level. Besides, their curve editor is not quite "customizable" (it lets you tug on the curve ±3dB, but not reshape it to your preference).

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #823 of 3048 Old 10-17-2012, 03:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Randy Bessinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,342
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Randy Bessinger is offline  
post #824 of 3048 Old 10-17-2012, 03:42 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 10,389
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 365

Looks like a downward tilted curve with a 3 dB roll off at 20 kHz to me. And that's exactly what they say it is.

Craig

Lombardi said it:
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System

craig john is offline  
post #825 of 3048 Old 10-17-2012, 05:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bessinger View Post

I thougth the initital research was done here
http://stevens.usc.edu/read_article.php?news_id=143
and that Chris has rather technical book out on the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/High-Fidelity-Multichannel-EURASIP-Processing-Communications/dp/B0041VA856/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350510016&sr=8-1&keywords=High-Fidelity+Multichannel+Audio+Coding+Chris+Kyriakakis%2C+and+C.-C.+Jay+Kuo+Dai+Tracy+Yang
It would be way over my head. Anyone posting here read it?

I've skimmed it. Maybe half of it is pretty familiar to me, and should be familiar to some others who post here. I'd probably find more who read it over at HA.
arnyk is offline  
post #826 of 3048 Old 10-17-2012, 05:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rnrgagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

No one said they should. I was simply pointing out that they weren't "very public" about it. Looks flat:
multeq-tour-05.gif
Says flat:
multeq-tour-10.gif

I assume those are if you select "flat" as the option, their target curve doesn't look like that.

This is from the curve editor, the Audyssey house curve is the red one before applying editing;



I don't know if the midrange compensation is a default of the house curve in consumer products but pretty sure the roll-off is their norm.
rnrgagne is offline  
post #827 of 3048 Old 10-17-2012, 05:49 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bessinger View Post

I thougth the initital research was done here
http://stevens.usc.edu/read_article.php?news_id=143
and that Chris has rather technical book out on the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/High-Fidelity-Multichannel-EURASIP-Processing-Communications/dp/B0041VA856/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350510016&sr=8-1&keywords=High-Fidelity+Multichannel+Audio+Coding+Chris+Kyriakakis%2C+and+C.-C.+Jay+Kuo+Dai+Tracy+Yang
It would be way over my head. Anyone posting here read it?
I took a look at the table of content and it is a classic book on audio compression, focused on muti-channel systems. The word "coding" is signal processing lingo meaning compression or codecs. There is nothing in there to shine a light on how their auto EQ system works. It is ironic that it has a full chapter on listening tests yet they have not provided any on their EQ systems.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #828 of 3048 Old 10-17-2012, 06:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rnrgagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Dynamic EQ is loudness compensation, not room correction. It operates based on deviation from reference level. Problem is, if you pick a random CD off your shelf, you don't know what level it was mixed at (its reference level), rendering Dynamic EQ ineffective at what it was intended to do.

Well it's not room correction, but it works in conjunction with MultEQ and the goal is that the in-room FR remains the same redardless of volume, it's based on in-room SPL reference from the EQ's measurements. The only way it's going to do that is to adjust the curve/filters on the fly as far as I know.
rnrgagne is offline  
post #829 of 3048 Old 10-17-2012, 09:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani 
Dynamic EQ is loudness compensation, not room correction. It operates based on deviation from reference level. Problem is, if you pick a random CD off your shelf, you don't know what level it was mixed at (its reference level), rendering Dynamic EQ ineffective at what it was intended to do.
Anyone ever created a device that does this intelligently by, oh I dunno... quickly inspecting a file, track, or upcoming xxx seconds of audio and calculating the rough average level, and using that as an offset from your current system volume to make appropriate FM adjustments?

Bigus is offline  
post #830 of 3048 Old 10-17-2012, 09:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Nevermind... on first reading I thought you were talking about how "hot" it was transferred to the media (ie compression). After posting I realized you meant the volume the mixing and/or mastering engineer heard while applying final eq. Yeah, I suppose you'd have to assume reference there. To do it right you'd need the level at final eq/mastering encoded on disc, then offset from there to current playback volume.

Or, crazy idea, have standards in music production. Ha! smile.gif

Bigus is offline  
post #831 of 3048 Old 10-18-2012, 01:12 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,896
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1436 Post(s)
Liked: 1029
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

This is from the curve editor, the Audyssey house curve is the red one before applying editing;


The diagram I posted from Audyssey's website uses the words "flat response" to describe their target. The high frequency roll-off is a Holman feature since his THX days and isn't used when using the Audyssey Flat/Music curve rather than their default. Audyssey Pro has the same flat target curve, with user selectable roll-off.

By comparison, target curves from Dirac and Lyngdorf have over 5dB of tilt from low to high frequencies, and Harman and DTS (in their room correction paper) have a 10dB tilt from low to high. In the example below, the first two curves are Harman, the third is Lyngdorf. Compare that to the "tilt" in the MultEQ curve I posted and the Audyssey Pro curve you posted.

viewer?pid=explorer&srcid=0B97zTRsdcJTfY2U4ODhiZmUtNDEyNC00ZDcyLWEzZTAtMGJiODQ1ZTUxMGQ4&docid=6acfbb12ff81eb2c6a886a651d8b41c8%7C365633405897b87dcd7bea289c819844&a=bi&pagenumber=24&w=796
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

Well it's not room correction, but it works in conjunction with MultEQ and the goal is that the in-room FR remains the same redardless of volume, it's based on in-room SPL reference from the EQ's measurements. The only way it's going to do that is to adjust the curve/filters on the fly as far as I know.
That's done by other loudness compensation technologies as well, like Dolby Volume and THX Loudness Plus. I wasn't question their ability to keep "in-room FR remains the same regardless of volume", but instead talking about the "in-room FR" itself, which is based on the target curve.

To that end, let me ask you a question. Suppose I was a receiver manufacturer and hired you to design the room correction. I'll be licensing loudness compensation, but (like with Dynamic EQ) there's no way to know whether the user will use it or not. What would your target curve look like: closer to flat or closer to the kind of tilt that Lyngdorf, Harman and DTS use?

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #832 of 3048 Old 10-18-2012, 01:24 AM
 
Breako's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

LOL, perfect. biggrin.gif
I'm proud to say I've been kicked out of more than a few forums for politely suggesting that people's ears are not as reliable as they believe. Hey, when you can't refute someone on the facts, all that's left is censorship.
--Ethan


LOL, how true indeed. I get a kick out of watching all the ridiculous claims these fact evading buffons make. If you want some good comedy go over to the Dynaudio owners speaker thread. Talk about rampant BS. You get all the classic Koolaid in one place from the "my Dyns really opened up with that Shunyata cable", to the "my Dynaudios just really didnt sing until I hooked it up to that $10k amp", to the "0hhhhh my soundstage exploded open once I switched to that Class amp, blah, blah, blah." Most of these clowns should write fiction. Not that they would be good at it, but what they scribe would surely be comical reading. Truth is many people just like evading science, objective testing and facts. Heck, one of the idiots went so far as to state that even if what he was hearing was all placebo effect it was still a good thing because it felt better sounding to him. In a psyche ward they call that rationalization. No cure for stupid, none. Ron White, Tata Salad. tongue.gif
Breako is offline  
post #833 of 3048 Old 10-18-2012, 02:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,491
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 933 Post(s)
Liked: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breako View Post

Heck, one of the idiots went so far as to state that even if what he was hearing was all placebo effect it was still a good thing because it felt better sounding to him.

That's not "idiotic" but a scientific fact. The problem with placebos is that they don't work for everybody although placebo effect vendors try their best to make them work for a broad audience smile.gif

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is online now  
post #834 of 3048 Old 10-18-2012, 06:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Anyone ever created a device that does this intelligently by, oh I dunno... quickly inspecting a file, track, or upcoming xxx seconds of audio and calculating the rough average level, and using that as an offset from your current system volume to make appropriate FM adjustments?

About as good as it gets is MP3gain which has been expanded to cover far more types of files (notably FLAC) and implemented in a goodly number of digital players, both software and hardware:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3Gain
arnyk is offline  
post #835 of 3048 Old 10-18-2012, 09:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Randy Bessinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,342
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

The diagram I posted from Audyssey's website uses the words "flat response" to describe their target. The high frequency roll-off is a Holman feature since his THX days and isn't used when using the Audyssey Flat/Music curve rather than their default. Audyssey Pro has the same flat target curve, with user selectable roll-off.
By comparison, target curves from Dirac and Lyngdorf have over 5dB of tilt from low to high frequencies, and Harman and DTS (in their room correction paper) have a 10dB tilt from low to high. In the example below, the first two curves are Harman, the third is Lyngdorf. Compare that to the "tilt" in the MultEQ curve I posted and the Audyssey Pro curve you posted.
viewer?pid=explorer&srcid=0B97zTRsdcJTfY2U4ODhiZmUtNDEyNC00ZDcyLWEzZTAtMGJiODQ1ZTUxMGQ4&docid=6acfbb12ff81eb2c6a886a651d8b41c8%7C365633405897b87dcd7bea289c819844&a=bi&pagenumber=24&w=796
That's done by other loudness compensation technologies as well, like Dolby Volume and THX Loudness Plus. I wasn't question their ability to keep "in-room FR remains the same regardless of volume", but instead talking about the "in-room FR" itself, which is based on the target curve.
To that end, let me ask you a question. Suppose I was a receiver manufacturer and hired you to design the room correction. I'll be licensing loudness compensation, but (like with Dynamic EQ) there's no way to know whether the user will use it or not. What would your target curve look like: closer to flat or closer to the kind of tilt that Lyngdorf, Harman and DTS use?
Sanjay, do you know which version of Audyssey was tested (by Harman)? Also, is the tilt really just saying people like more bass as long as it is not boomy? I have not heard the x32 version of Audyssey. Do you know if that fixed people's complaints about anemic bass? Just curious. FWIW, I was less than thrilled with the original standalone box and took it out of my system rather quickly.

The problem with Harman is that their good stuff is too darn expensive (or has availability issues) and the Lexicon room eq and Harman Kardon receivers eq, while interesting from a conceptual standpoint (adjusting to your speakers), didn't do much for me either. Just my opinion.

The sub part has always been the fly in the ointment in my opinion. Welti's original work was great but as you add more subs the efficiency goes down and it requires rather stringent placement and room requirements (not to mention same subs). Soundfield Management is the cat's meow but I am still not sure how it differs significantly from Geddes approach except for computerizing the work (not trivial, but not cheap).
Randy Bessinger is offline  
post #836 of 3048 Old 10-18-2012, 09:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rnrgagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

To that end, let me ask you a question. Suppose I was a receiver manufacturer and hired you to design the room correction. I'll be licensing loudness compensation, but (like with Dynamic EQ) there's no way to know whether the user will use it or not. What would your target curve look like: closer to flat or closer to the kind of tilt that Lyngdorf, Harman and DTS use?

I'm not sure why you ask that question, regardless of who designs the curve, it's a target curve, and the end goal would be the same wouldn't it? To achieve that curve at all volume levels.
The real question you seem to be asking is what's your preferred curve, isn't it?

It would seem to me that given the popularity of Audyssey, and the sheer volume of manufacturers that use it, that their criteria is sufficient to meet those manufacturers' design goals. So while there may be data suggesting a more preferred target curve in controlled settings, it would seem in the real world manufacturers and consumers are voting with their wallets.

I've grown "accustomed" to the curve I posted above, and don't use DEQ, that's just personal preference. The thing is for the purpose of this thread, I can actually hear what both do unlike a $1000 power cord.
rnrgagne is offline  
post #837 of 3048 Old 10-18-2012, 10:22 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The other problem with placebos is that they often stop working.

Many of the magic cable and etc. advocates I see posting on various forums have pretty impressive inventories of equipment that is no longer in service because they *upgraded*. ;-)
arnyk is offline  
post #838 of 3048 Old 10-18-2012, 10:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

It would seem to me that given the popularity of Audyssey, and the sheer volume of manufacturers that use it, that their criteria is sufficient to meet those manufacturers' design goals.
The manufacturers have one and only one goal: to have a logo that sells more gear. If it happens to do something good, that would be nice, but not a necessary condition smile.gif. Audyssey marketing on that front has been phenomenal so it has the necessary ingredient to get there. It adds no credibility to its merits compared to other solutions, many of which are not available for licensing or if they were, would require a lot more computing power to run. These factors are far more important than whether the thing works most of the time or not. The groups have managed technologies that we licensed to just about every consumer electronics company and what I just described are the key drivers.
Quote:
So while there may be data suggesting a more preferred target curve in controlled settings, it would seem in the real world manufacturers and consumers are voting with their wallets.
The consumer has not had the opportunity to compare. It is not like each gear comes with two competing ones and you can pick. The controlled setting did allow comparison and once there, differences both subjectivity and objectively popped out. To replace that science and data with popularity contest is not what I thought we subscribed to on AVS!
Quote:
I've grown "accustomed" to the curve I posted above, and don't use DEQ, that's just personal preference.
Sadly it is thought that the reason may people live with less than performant systems is that they get used to them. There are many reviews where they at first thought a speaker sounded poorly and then after living with them a few months they change their mind. Sadly they blame that on burn in and such. In reality, they are getting used to looking past the imperfections. Think of you how you tune out your projector or PC hum after the first few seconds.

Now if you had the opportunity to properly compare your favorites to some other and with bias of sighted evaluation and preference for what you already own removed and arrived at that conclusion, it would be cool smile.gif. But as it is, these arguments are not scientific and to the point of which technology works better.
Quote:
The thing is for the purpose of this thread, I can actually hear what both do unlike a $1000 power cord.
You keep thinking if you hear a difference, the work is done. You have never explained why that is the case for you. You also keep tying these topics together such as this very recent post in a thread discussing which interconnect to use between the player and AVR:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

The only reason I said try it yourself is to be politically correct. If you're a normal guy listening to normal stuff, in a normal room, with normal gear, then don't waste your time, just use HDMI and be done with it. Learning some common sense speaker/room set up and how to use Audyssey will be a much better use of your time.

As long as you all continue to tie every discussion to that of spending money on speakers and room optimization, then you have no choice but to demonstrate why you are not in favor of same science and listening based proofs for evaluating those fields. Monster sells a ton of cables. By your logic above, then there must be merit to their premium cables because consumers have "voted with their wallet." You won't buy that argument from anyone there, but you present it for us to accept why your purchase decision in room optimization is the right one. smile.gif

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #839 of 3048 Old 10-18-2012, 10:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

The controlled setting did allow comparison and once there, differences both subjectivity and objectively popped out.

That comment looks very misleading to me. All I see is one comparison of one setting by one party who surprise, surprise decided to say something critical about a competitor.

Wanna talk about what kind of testing it would take to say something scientific, since what's been brought to the table so far isn't it?

BTW comparing system self-optimization systems (Audessey, MCACC, etc.) may be all that hard. It would not be difficult to do good bias-controlled tests of them. Just do DBTs of competing receivers with their self-optimization subsystems turned on, in a variety of different rooms. No harder than doing DBTs of power amps, really. Since this is a preference test, ABC/hr might be a better choice than ABX.
arnyk is offline  
post #840 of 3048 Old 10-18-2012, 11:02 AM
Member
 
atomicmist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Near Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Thought I`d throw this into the pot...

http://www.head-fi.org/t/285743/goldmund-v-s-pioneer
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=42879

If I ever die of a heart attack, I hope it will be from listening to a movie too loud!
atomicmist is offline  
Reply Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off